Adoption/Abortion

[Ooberman]

One of the key components to any policy that limits abortion is the increase in adoption.

Let's open this up to any comments about the general issue - related to both - but I will share a small side comment.

Married couples are known to provide more stable households for raising children, and increasing the amount of married couples increases the amount of families able to provide stable households for adopted children.

Thus, allowing gay marriage provides a perfect solution for so many orphans.

In fact, it's one of the things I am so proud of my sister and her partner for. They have tried to adopt for years, and after a few horror stories (people hiding severe psychological issues from them, simply to unload the kids), they have finally adopted two children: one older, one an infant.


It seems to me the solutions are in front of us but religious and cultural mores keep us from doing the right thing: allowing gay marriage, increasing adoption, decreasing abortion (by keeping it legal), and saving the world...

[10CC]

[Replying to post 141 by dianaiad]

yeah, extreme...but I don't like rapists, and no matter what else is involved, the baby has got to be the most innocent victim possible

I thought all unborn babies were innocent victims.

They are. I was reaffirming that position in the case of a rape which 'starts' them.

If they are not, can you tell me what crime they have committed?

None at all. Shoot, I don't even believe in 'original sin."

dang, man, I have to ask: what left hay-field did that come from? Frankly, this isn't just a strawman argument, you had to plant, nurture and harvest the whole 'back twenty' to find it.

Diana, I can find a passage (quoted here often) that has god coercing the rapist to marry the rapee, but can you produce one where god permits the abortion of the resultant foetus or where god condemns the rapist to death should such an abortion take place. The rapist is of course able to give the father a few coins for the use of his property, a very generous concession from god I would have thought.

Look; I don't know what side you are taking in this, but stop trying to pick a fight with me. My belief system is pretty solidly anti-abortion except in cases of rape and when the mother's life is in danger. We have politicians on both sides of the 'we oughtapassalaw" side of this issue. My own view is a little more restrictive than that of my church, in that I don't think rape is a reason to abort UNLESS the pregnancy, in addition to the rape, poses a real threat to the psychological and/or physical life of the mother. However, I think that this decision should be hers. Not yours and not mine....in the case of rape.

Pick something more substantive over which to pick a fight, in other words. This one is only going to get an eyebrow raised at you. Especially when you try to pin me down with a quote from the OT.

You'll only get snorted at.

But isn't that what it's all about Diana? I applaud your stance and know that that means nothing to you and accept that. I'm a male and therefore despite my abhorrence of abortion I understand that I have NO valid position in the argument. I question your position, for the real reason that you accept the right of a woman to her own body only under the circumstances that you allow. Your bible allegedly doesn't allow them any such right of control. It is why the abominations prescribed in the bible for the instances of rape are so completely unreasonable it is at least ONE of very many reasons to reject the teachings in the bible. You have in ONE small area and I commend you for it, but you need to examine all of the atrocities as well. If you or your daughter were raped would you or her obey god's commandment to marry your rapist? Don't give me the get out of jail card that you can refuse, you are invoking the laws of ancient herdsmen in which case it is incumbent upon you to accept the absolute rule of MEN. If your father accepts a few coins for the use of his property then you as his property have no say.

[dianaiad]

But isn't that what it's all about Diana? I applaud your stance and know that that means nothing to you and accept that. I'm a male and therefore despite my abhorrence of abortion I understand that I have NO valid position in the argument. I question your position, for the real reason that you accept the right of a woman to her own body only under the circumstances that you allow. Your bible allegedly doesn't allow them any such right of control. It is why the abominations prescribed in the bible for the instances of rape are so completely unreasonable it is at least ONE of very many reasons to reject the teachings in the bible. You have in ONE small area and I commend you for it, but you need to examine all of the atrocities as well. If you or your daughter were raped would you or her obey god's commandment to marry your rapist? Don't give me the get out of jail card that you can refuse, you are invoking the laws of ancient herdsmen in which case it is incumbent upon you to accept the absolute rule of MEN. If your father accepts a few coins for the use of his property then you as his property have no say.

The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus came to 'fulfill' the law of Moses. There are a few passages in the NT that specifically address what happens when Christianity bumps up against the law of Moses...and when there is a conflict, the NT wins. Therefore, with most Christians, your quoting of the OT as some dictator of what we should, or should not do, is ludicrous. We do not live under the law of Moses, and haven't done so in 2000 years. We are not required to do so.

That's one point.

Another is that you happen to be talking to a MORMON type Christian here. In addition to the NT, which supersedes the OT in terms of law and behavior, I have additional scripture; the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the guidance of modern prophets alive right now.

ALL of which supersede the Law of Moses.

You don't believe in any of it...so for you, the OT is no more, or less, valid than any of the other books I just mentioned. This means that you don't get to insist that I adhere to the Law of Moses over anything else, or that I ignore those other books because you say I must.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 130 by Goat]

Well, someone has been listening to a bunch of hooey. Let's see you come up with a science source that says that the body shuts down and a woman can't get pregnant from rape. Show a link to this 'medical research', or withdraw your claim.

I am not going to repeat myself just to satisfy the whims of an atheist.

I am not asking you to repeat yourself. I am asking you to show what you claim is true. Saying ' you read it once' doesn't show your source was true and accurate.

Please, back up your claim. That would be 'new' information, and not repeating.

[wotsupdoc]

[Replying to post 150 by 10CC]

It is why the abominations prescribed in the bible for the instances of rape are so completely unreasonable it is at least ONE of very many reasons to reject the teachings in the bible. You have in ONE small area and I commend you for it, but you need to examine all of the atrocities as well. If you or your daughter were raped would you or her obey god's commandment to marry your rapist? Don't give me the get out of jail card that you can refuse, you are invoking the laws of ancient herdsmen in which case it is incumbent upon you to accept the absolute rule of MEN. If your father accepts a few coins for the use of his property then you as his property have no say.

Are the words of Jesus to love one another an abomination as well?

============================

John 3:15 Then everyone who has faith in the Son of Man will have eternal life.

[10CC]

But isn't that what it's all about Diana? I applaud your stance and know that that means nothing to you and accept that. I'm a male and therefore despite my abhorrence of abortion I understand that I have NO valid position in the argument. I question your position, for the real reason that you accept the right of a woman to her own body only under the circumstances that you allow. Your bible allegedly doesn't allow them any such right of control. It is why the abominations prescribed in the bible for the instances of rape are so completely unreasonable it is at least ONE of very many reasons to reject the teachings in the bible. You have in ONE small area and I commend you for it, but you need to examine all of the atrocities as well. If you or your daughter were raped would you or her obey god's commandment to marry your rapist? Don't give me the get out of jail card that you can refuse, you are invoking the laws of ancient herdsmen in which case it is incumbent upon you to accept the absolute rule of MEN. If your father accepts a few coins for the use of his property then you as his property have no say.

The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus came to 'fulfill' the law of Moses. There are a few passages in the NT that specifically address what happens when Christianity bumps up against the law of Moses...and when there is a conflict, the NT wins. Therefore, with most Christians, your quoting of the OT as some dictator of what we should, or should not do, is ludicrous. We do not live under the law of Moses, and haven't done so in 2000 years. We are not required to do so.

That's one point.

Another is that you happen to be talking to a MORMON type Christian here. In addition to the NT, which supersedes the OT in terms of law and behavior, I have additional scripture; the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the guidance of modern prophets alive right now.

ALL of which supersede the Law of Moses.

You don't believe in any of it...so for you, the OT is no more, or less, valid than any of the other books I just mentioned. This means that you don't get to insist that I adhere to the Law of Moses over anything else, or that I ignore those other books because you say I must.

I've revisited my post and can find nowhere where I insisted that you followed OT law, I think that deserves a retraction but I won't loose sleep over it. I voiced my objection to the obscenities in the OT? Do those other books or the NT teach the stance you have declared for yourself? I have in fact commended you on that stance and have "declared" that it is probably not biblical, all I'm doing now is asking if the rest of your scripture supports your stance? IMO the majority of antiabortionists base their stance on rules written by men who consider women to be the possessions of men.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 150 by 10CC]

It is why the abominations prescribed in the bible for the instances of rape are so completely unreasonable it is at least ONE of very many reasons to reject the teachings in the bible. You have in ONE small area and I commend you for it, but you need to examine all of the atrocities as well. If you or your daughter were raped would you or her obey god's commandment to marry your rapist? Don't give me the get out of jail card that you can refuse, you are invoking the laws of ancient herdsmen in which case it is incumbent upon you to accept the absolute rule of MEN. If your father accepts a few coins for the use of his property then you as his property have no say.

Are the words of Jesus to love one another an abomination as well?

I love how pathetic and disingenuous that is.
Would you now care to respond to my post?

[dianaiad]

But isn't that what it's all about Diana? I applaud your stance and know that that means nothing to you and accept that. I'm a male and therefore despite my abhorrence of abortion I understand that I have NO valid position in the argument. I question your position, for the real reason that you accept the right of a woman to her own body only under the circumstances that you allow. Your bible allegedly doesn't allow them any such right of control. It is why the abominations prescribed in the bible for the instances of rape are so completely unreasonable it is at least ONE of very many reasons to reject the teachings in the bible. You have in ONE small area and I commend you for it, but you need to examine all of the atrocities as well. If you or your daughter were raped would you or her obey god's commandment to marry your rapist? Don't give me the get out of jail card that you can refuse, you are invoking the laws of ancient herdsmen in which case it is incumbent upon you to accept the absolute rule of MEN. If your father accepts a few coins for the use of his property then you as his property have no say.

The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus came to 'fulfill' the law of Moses. There are a few passages in the NT that specifically address what happens when Christianity bumps up against the law of Moses...and when there is a conflict, the NT wins. Therefore, with most Christians, your quoting of the OT as some dictator of what we should, or should not do, is ludicrous. We do not live under the law of Moses, and haven't done so in 2000 years. We are not required to do so.

That's one point.

Another is that you happen to be talking to a MORMON type Christian here. In addition to the NT, which supersedes the OT in terms of law and behavior, I have additional scripture; the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the guidance of modern prophets alive right now.

ALL of which supersede the Law of Moses.

You don't believe in any of it...so for you, the OT is no more, or less, valid than any of the other books I just mentioned. This means that you don't get to insist that I adhere to the Law of Moses over anything else, or that I ignore those other books because you say I must.

I've revisited my post and can find nowhere where I insisted that you followed OT law, I think that deserves a retraction but I won't loose sleep over it. I voiced my objection to the obscenities in the OT? Do those other books or the NT teach the stance you have declared for yourself? I have in fact commended you on that stance and have "declared" that it is probably not biblical, all I'm doing now is asking if the rest of your scripture supports your stance? IMO the majority of antiabortionists base their stance on rules written by men who consider women to be the possessions of men.

That's the point: the OT contains the history and stories of God's dealings with His people under the law of Moses. Things change; people and events change. To decide that my 'stance' is not biblical is to say that the NT is not biblical; God and Jesus did not deal with the early Christians the way Jehovah dealt with the Jews before Jesus's coming.

So...while you can say that my stance may not be not 'Old Testament," you can't say that it's 'unbiblical."

And frankly, telling a Mormon that any believe s/he holds is 'unbiblical' is going to get the following response: my beliefs may not march with your interpretation of the bible, but they go fine with mine, and since when do you get to interpret the bible for me?

That is especially true when a non-believer comes after us for something being 'unbiblical.' I know that this post sounds a bit snarky, and I apologize for the tone. I just don't know how to put this any less bluntly.

Let me try it this way:

The bible isn't a book. It is a collection of books; each one different, each one dealing with a different group of people, a different topic, different times. Some of those books are less, er..'scriptural' than others. I love the "Song of Songs,' for instance, but there is no way on this planet that you can tell me that it is an allegorical relation of God's relationship to mankind.

The organization of those books in the collection is arbitrary, made to fit the tidy genes of some scholar-monks; there's no divine influence in the order in which, for instance, the books of the NT are placed. The order makes sense, the books being grouped by type, but that's only one way they could have been ordered. The OT seems to be, mostly, chronological. The NT isn't, not mainly.

I don't have any problems with the organization, mind you; just pointing out that the bible has a great deal of human influence in its compilation. For one thing...why THOSE books, and not others that had equal claims to attention? Why those, INSTEAD of others? More than one Christian scholar has wanted to either throw out, or include, books we don't see in the modern "KJV." The Douay, for instance, still has a few the KJV and it's predecessors/descendants don't have.

I know, I know...I'm speaking something close to heresy for the 'bible is perfect and unchanged' folks, but the bible is neither perfect nor unchanged. People have been messing with it for millenia. This does not mean that it doesn't contain the word of God, or that it's not scripture; I certainly believe that it is. What it does mean...and this is where I bring this back to the topic...is that you don't get to use biblical prooftexts from the OT, which you have cherry picked to serve your purposes, to tell me that my beliefs are unbiblical.

OF COURSE they are biblical! They may not be 'Law of Moses" compatible, or even OT compatible, but they are fully compatible with the NT (or at least, certainly not contradicted by the NT)...and that makes them 'biblical.'

Since the NT is the story of how Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses (among other things) and thus made that law moot for Christians, I think that is sufficient.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 150 by 10CC]

It is why the abominations prescribed in the bible for the instances of rape are so completely unreasonable it is at least ONE of very many reasons to reject the teachings in the bible. You have in ONE small area and I commend you for it, but you need to examine all of the atrocities as well. If you or your daughter were raped would you or her obey god's commandment to marry your rapist? Don't give me the get out of jail card that you can refuse, you are invoking the laws of ancient herdsmen in which case it is incumbent upon you to accept the absolute rule of MEN. If your father accepts a few coins for the use of his property then you as his property have no say.

Are the words of Jesus to love one another an abomination as well?

Can you show me words from Jesus that removes loving anybody from the list? Not from Paul, not from the mistranslation of the Jewish scriptures.. but from Jesus himself.

Also, the word 'abomintion' is a very poor translation for the Hebrew word Tovah. Do you know what is also classified as 'tovah' ?? Eating cheeseburgers.
Wearing mixed fiber.

[10CC]

But isn't that what it's all about Diana? I applaud your stance and know that that means nothing to you and accept that. I'm a male and therefore despite my abhorrence of abortion I understand that I have NO valid position in the argument. I question your position, for the real reason that you accept the right of a woman to her own body only under the circumstances that you allow. Your bible allegedly doesn't allow them any such right of control. It is why the abominations prescribed in the bible for the instances of rape are so completely unreasonable it is at least ONE of very many reasons to reject the teachings in the bible. You have in ONE small area and I commend you for it, but you need to examine all of the atrocities as well. If you or your daughter were raped would you or her obey god's commandment to marry your rapist? Don't give me the get out of jail card that you can refuse, you are invoking the laws of ancient herdsmen in which case it is incumbent upon you to accept the absolute rule of MEN. If your father accepts a few coins for the use of his property then you as his property have no say.

The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus came to 'fulfill' the law of Moses. There are a few passages in the NT that specifically address what happens when Christianity bumps up against the law of Moses...and when there is a conflict, the NT wins. Therefore, with most Christians, your quoting of the OT as some dictator of what we should, or should not do, is ludicrous. We do not live under the law of Moses, and haven't done so in 2000 years. We are not required to do so.

That's one point.

Another is that you happen to be talking to a MORMON type Christian here. In addition to the NT, which supersedes the OT in terms of law and behavior, I have additional scripture; the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the guidance of modern prophets alive right now.

ALL of which supersede the Law of Moses.

You don't believe in any of it...so for you, the OT is no more, or less, valid than any of the other books I just mentioned. This means that you don't get to insist that I adhere to the Law of Moses over anything else, or that I ignore those other books because you say I must.

I've revisited my post and can find nowhere where I insisted that you followed OT law, I think that deserves a retraction but I won't loose sleep over it. I voiced my objection to the obscenities in the OT? Do those other books or the NT teach the stance you have declared for yourself? I have in fact commended you on that stance and have "declared" that it is probably not biblical, all I'm doing now is asking if the rest of your scripture supports your stance? IMO the majority of antiabortionists base their stance on rules written by men who consider women to be the possessions of men.

That's the point: the OT contains the history and stories of God's dealings with His people under the law of Moses. Things change; people and events change. To decide that my 'stance' is not biblical is to say that the NT is not biblical; God and Jesus did not deal with the early Christians the way Jehovah dealt with the Jews before Jesus's coming.

Well I have no idea why you are attacking me for merely asking questions. Do all Mormons suffer from a persecution complex? I mean really. I thought the debates were meant to be civil, I certainly have been.

So...while you can say that my stance may not be not 'Old Testament," you can't say that it's 'unbiblical."

I didn't say either, I said "probably not biblical". Since the BIBLE consists of OT and NT I guess you can choose whichever parts you care to believe and be ruled by I guess, at least that seems to be what you are telling me.

And frankly, telling a Mormon that any believe s/he holds is 'unbiblical' is going to get the following response: my beliefs may not march with your interpretation of the bible, but they go fine with mine, and since when do you get to interpret the bible for me?

Once again unsubstantiated claims being used to attack me. I'll say it again in case you missed it I didn't call your stance unbiblical, I did commend you for your stance though. I didn't interpret anything for anybody.

That is especially true when a non-believer comes after us for something being 'unbiblical.' I know that this post sounds a bit snarky, and I apologize for the tone. I just don't know how to put this any less bluntly.

That takes some chutzpa, no honesty required though to attack me with unsubstantiated claims regarding my integrity and intentions and behaviour and then apologise for "sounding a bit snarky"

Let me try it this way:

The bible isn't a book. It is a collection of books; each one different, each one dealing with a different group of people, a different topic, different times. Some of those books are less, er..'scriptural' than others. I love the "Song of Songs,' for instance, but there is no way on this planet that you can tell me that it is an allegorical relation of God's relationship to mankind.

The organization of those books in the collection is arbitrary, made to fit the tidy genes of some scholar-monks; there's no divine influence in the order in which, for instance, the books of the NT are placed. The order makes sense, the books being grouped by type, but that's only one way they could have been ordered. The OT seems to be, mostly, chronological. The NT isn't, not mainly.

I don't have any problems with the organization, mind you; just pointing out that the bible has a great deal of human influence in its compilation. For one thing...why THOSE books, and not others that had equal claims to attention? Why those, INSTEAD of others? More than one Christian scholar has wanted to either throw out, or include, books we don't see in the modern "KJV." The Douay, for instance, still has a few the KJV and it's predecessors/descendants don't have.

You seem to be trying to justify rejecting the parts of the bible that you reject, thank you, but I would rather that you answered my questions regarding the scriptures, either NT or your other three scriptural works that permit the quite honourable stance that you have taken.

I know, I know...I'm speaking something close to heresy for the 'bible is perfect and unchanged' folks, but the bible is neither perfect nor unchanged. People have been messing with it for millenia. This does not mean that it doesn't contain the word of God, or that it's not scripture; I certainly believe that it is. What it does mean...and this is where I bring this back to the topic...is that you don't get to use biblical prooftexts from the OT, which you have cherry picked to serve your purposes, to tell me that my beliefs are unbiblical.

Been said often enough now.

OF COURSE they are biblical! They may not be 'Law of Moses" compatible, or even OT compatible, but they are fully compatible with the NT (or at least, certainly not contradicted by the NT)...and that makes them 'biblical.'

Since the NT is the story of how Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses (among other things) and thus made that law moot for Christians, I think that is sufficient.

Those of the "bible is perfect and unchanged folk" produce passages of scripture in their vain attempts to justify the obscene positions they take. All I am doing Diana is asking do you have scriptural passages to support your stance, or are you a brave and honest and caring woman who because of those traits MUST reject the positions propounded by most conservative christians?

[dianaiad]

But isn't that what it's all about Diana? I applaud your stance and know that that means nothing to you and accept that. I'm a male and therefore despite my abhorrence of abortion I understand that I have NO valid position in the argument. I question your position, for the real reason that you accept the right of a woman to her own body only under the circumstances that you allow. Your bible allegedly doesn't allow them any such right of control. It is why the abominations prescribed in the bible for the instances of rape are so completely unreasonable it is at least ONE of very many reasons to reject the teachings in the bible. You have in ONE small area and I commend you for it, but you need to examine all of the atrocities as well. If you or your daughter were raped would you or her obey god's commandment to marry your rapist? Don't give me the get out of jail card that you can refuse, you are invoking the laws of ancient herdsmen in which case it is incumbent upon you to accept the absolute rule of MEN. If your father accepts a few coins for the use of his property then you as his property have no say.

The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus came to 'fulfill' the law of Moses. There are a few passages in the NT that specifically address what happens when Christianity bumps up against the law of Moses...and when there is a conflict, the NT wins. Therefore, with most Christians, your quoting of the OT as some dictator of what we should, or should not do, is ludicrous. We do not live under the law of Moses, and haven't done so in 2000 years. We are not required to do so.

That's one point.

Another is that you happen to be talking to a MORMON type Christian here. In addition to the NT, which supersedes the OT in terms of law and behavior, I have additional scripture; the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the guidance of modern prophets alive right now.

ALL of which supersede the Law of Moses.

You don't believe in any of it...so for you, the OT is no more, or less, valid than any of the other books I just mentioned. This means that you don't get to insist that I adhere to the Law of Moses over anything else, or that I ignore those other books because you say I must.

I've revisited my post and can find nowhere where I insisted that you followed OT law, I think that deserves a retraction but I won't loose sleep over it. I voiced my objection to the obscenities in the OT? Do those other books or the NT teach the stance you have declared for yourself? I have in fact commended you on that stance and have "declared" that it is probably not biblical, all I'm doing now is asking if the rest of your scripture supports your stance? IMO the majority of antiabortionists base their stance on rules written by men who consider women to be the possessions of men.

That's the point: the OT contains the history and stories of God's dealings with His people under the law of Moses. Things change; people and events change. To decide that my 'stance' is not biblical is to say that the NT is not biblical; God and Jesus did not deal with the early Christians the way Jehovah dealt with the Jews before Jesus's coming.

Well I have no idea why you are attacking me for merely asking questions. Do all Mormons suffer from a persecution complex? I mean really. I thought the debates were meant to be civil, I certainly have been.

So...while you can say that my stance may not be not 'Old Testament," you can't say that it's 'unbiblical."

I didn't say either, I said "probably not biblical". Since the BIBLE consists of OT and NT I guess you can choose whichever parts you care to believe and be ruled by I guess, at least that seems to be what you are telling me.

And frankly, telling a Mormon that any believe s/he holds is 'unbiblical' is going to get the following response: my beliefs may not march with your interpretation of the bible, but they go fine with mine, and since when do you get to interpret the bible for me?

Once again unsubstantiated claims being used to attack me. I'll say it again in case you missed it I didn't call your stance unbiblical, I did commend you for your stance though. I didn't interpret anything for anybody.

That is especially true when a non-believer comes after us for something being 'unbiblical.' I know that this post sounds a bit snarky, and I apologize for the tone. I just don't know how to put this any less bluntly.

That takes some chutzpa, no honesty required though to attack me with unsubstantiated claims regarding my integrity and intentions and behaviour and then apologise for "sounding a bit snarky"

Let me try it this way:

The bible isn't a book. It is a collection of books; each one different, each one dealing with a different group of people, a different topic, different times. Some of those books are less, er..'scriptural' than others. I love the "Song of Songs,' for instance, but there is no way on this planet that you can tell me that it is an allegorical relation of God's relationship to mankind.

The organization of those books in the collection is arbitrary, made to fit the tidy genes of some scholar-monks; there's no divine influence in the order in which, for instance, the books of the NT are placed. The order makes sense, the books being grouped by type, but that's only one way they could have been ordered. The OT seems to be, mostly, chronological. The NT isn't, not mainly.

I don't have any problems with the organization, mind you; just pointing out that the bible has a great deal of human influence in its compilation. For one thing...why THOSE books, and not others that had equal claims to attention? Why those, INSTEAD of others? More than one Christian scholar has wanted to either throw out, or include, books we don't see in the modern "KJV." The Douay, for instance, still has a few the KJV and it's predecessors/descendants don't have.

You seem to be trying to justify rejecting the parts of the bible that you reject, thank you, but I would rather that you answered my questions regarding the scriptures, either NT or your other three scriptural works that permit the quite honourable stance that you have taken.

I know, I know...I'm speaking something close to heresy for the 'bible is perfect and unchanged' folks, but the bible is neither perfect nor unchanged. People have been messing with it for millenia. This does not mean that it doesn't contain the word of God, or that it's not scripture; I certainly believe that it is. What it does mean...and this is where I bring this back to the topic...is that you don't get to use biblical prooftexts from the OT, which you have cherry picked to serve your purposes, to tell me that my beliefs are unbiblical.

Been said often enough now.

OF COURSE they are biblical! They may not be 'Law of Moses" compatible, or even OT compatible, but they are fully compatible with the NT (or at least, certainly not contradicted by the NT)...and that makes them 'biblical.'

Since the NT is the story of how Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses (among other things) and thus made that law moot for Christians, I think that is sufficient.

Those of the "bible is perfect and unchanged folk" produce passages of scripture in their vain attempts to justify the obscene positions they take. All I am doing Diana is asking do you have scriptural passages to support your stance, or are you a brave and honest and caring woman who because of those traits MUST reject the positions propounded by most conservative christians?

At no time have I attacked you personally. At no time have I called you names, or impugned your "integrity, intentions [or] behavior." I addressed the topic, and told you that you don't get to interpret the bible for me. I explained my view of the bible so that you would understand my view of it.

If you think that I have attacked you personally with THIS, what would you say to someone who wrote "This is a comment that is obviously far beyond your capacity to comprehend .."?

Now THAT is an ad hominem: an insult and an attack.

Perhaps learning the difference would be a good idea, especially when, as it happens, you are the one who wrote the line I just quoted.